Walter Block’s article, Drug Prohibition: A Legal and Economic Analysis, overall goal is to argue the legalization of drugs such as; marijuana, cocaine, and heroin. There are several sections within this article having to do with the economical, lawful, objectionable, and advantageous aspects of full legalization of such substances. The overall tone of the article is scholarly and very-little-to-no-bias. The article’s overall job is to persuade the readers in considering the idea of drugs being legalized. Block presents these points in an orderly manner with his own arguments as well as considering any other possible and existing ones. In the first section of economics, the passage begins to talk about the benefits of trade in the free market.
…show more content…
In another sense- money in lawful exchange for the use of heroin, cocaine, marijuana, etc. The reader is given two terms to consider: one being ex ante which means the purchasers would not agree to the trade did they not expect to gain from it in the first place, and ex post which means that the person that traded for the substance would have to continue to believe they are better off with the trade. The conclusion drawn from this is that “a free market in drugs (or anything else in that matter) will enhance economic welfare ex post, but rather only in the ex ante sense” (Block 689). However there is always the assumption that someone in the trade will believe that they could have benefited more from it in some way if the cost were lower or got more substance from the trade. Walter Block then starts basing trade from a definition standpoint, and that it is a “positive sum game” (690), and therefore both parties will gain from the trade, but the feeling of being aggrieved is still possible. He then explains issues with third parties and how …show more content…
He then makes the point by saying, “in the view of the economic actor, at the time the decision was made, the choice of consumption, whether Alcohol or Amadeus, was made in order to enhance his welfare” (Block 691). He brings up the Paternalistic argument that just means that any bad addictive substances should be prohibited from the public. Walter Block objects this with “were we to accept this argument in the present case, logic would require that we forbid all such items, and activities” (Block 692). Then he talks of relativity when it comes to harmful substances. Heroin compared to tobacco or alcohol makes heroin seem not so bad in the sense that there are many more each year, statistically, that die more from the latter. Yet, here we see only heroin being outlawed from these
In another sense- money in lawful exchange for the use of heroin, cocaine, marijuana, etc. The reader is given two terms to consider: one being ex ante which means the purchasers would not agree to the trade did they not expect to gain from it in the first place, and ex post which means that the person that traded for the substance would have to continue to believe they are better off with the trade. The conclusion drawn from this is that “a free market in drugs (or anything else in that matter) will enhance economic welfare ex post, but rather only in the ex ante sense” (Block 689). However there is always the assumption that someone in the trade will believe that they could have benefited more from it in some way if the cost were lower or got more substance from the trade. Walter Block then starts basing trade from a definition standpoint, and that it is a “positive sum game” (690), and therefore both parties will gain from the trade, but the feeling of being aggrieved is still possible. He then explains issues with third parties and how …show more content…
He then makes the point by saying, “in the view of the economic actor, at the time the decision was made, the choice of consumption, whether Alcohol or Amadeus, was made in order to enhance his welfare” (Block 691). He brings up the Paternalistic argument that just means that any bad addictive substances should be prohibited from the public. Walter Block objects this with “were we to accept this argument in the present case, logic would require that we forbid all such items, and activities” (Block 692). Then he talks of relativity when it comes to harmful substances. Heroin compared to tobacco or alcohol makes heroin seem not so bad in the sense that there are many more each year, statistically, that die more from the latter. Yet, here we see only heroin being outlawed from these